DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the recited limitation “whether the rotation data indicates a mutual correlation associated with unobstructed advancing of the car or counterweight or both” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the “mutual correlation” is referring to correlation between the rotation data associated with “rotation of at least two of said drive pulley, said first diverting pulley and said second diverting pulley”, or correlation between “the car” and “counterweight”.
For examination purpose, the “mutual correlation” is broadly interpreted as correlation between rotation data.
Regarding claim 5, similar to claim 1, the recited limitation regarding “mutual correlation” renders the claim indefinite.
Regarding claims 2-4 and 6-11, these claims are indefinite because they are either directly or indirectly depend on claim 1 or claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Talonen (EP 2760559 A1) (hereinafter rejections rely on provided equivalent English machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Talonen discloses a method for monitoring (e.g. Abstract) a run of a roping (e.g. Fig. 1: 4) interconnecting a car (e.g. Fig. 1: 1) and a counterweight (e.g. Fig. 1: 2) of an elevator and for detecting an abnormal operation condition (e.g. [0036-0039]) during a drive of a drive pulley (e.g. Fig. 1: 6) for moving the car and the counterweight by said roping, wherein the roping runs from the car to the drive pulley via first diverting pulley (e.g. Fig. 1: 7a, 7b) and from the counterweight to the drive pulley via a second diverting pulley (e.g. Fig. 1: 8),
said method comprising the steps of:
monitoring rotation of at least two of said driver pulley, said first diverting pulley and said second diverting pulley by sensing rotation thereof (e.g. Fig. 1: 20a-c & [0036-0039]); and
analysing rotation data associated with said monitoring to determine whether the rotation data indicates mutual correlation (e.g. [0036-0039]: speed difference between pulleys) associated with unobstructed advancing of the car or counterweight or both (e.g. [0036-0039]: stalling), and detecting the abnormal operation condition when the rotation data indicates an absence of such correlation (e.g. [0036-0039]).
Regarding claim 5, Talonen discloses a system for monitoring (e.g. Abstract) a run of a roping (e.g. Fig. 1: 4) interconnecting a car (e.g. Fig. 1: 1) and a counterweight (e.g. Fig. 1: 2) of an elevator and for detecting an abnormal operation condition (e.g. [0036-0039]) during a drive of a drive pulley (e.g. Fig. 1: 6) for moving the car and the counterweight by said roping,
the system comprising:
a first diverting pulley (e.g. Fig. 1: 7a, 7b) coupled to the car, the drive pulley and a second diverting pulley (e.g. Fig. 1: 8) coupled to the counterweight, wherein at least two of said driver pulley, said first diverting pulley and said second diverting pulley are equipped with sensors sensing rotation thereof (e.g. Fig. 1: 20a-c & [0036-0039]), respectively; and
a control unit (e.g. Fig. 9: 18) configured to receive sensor data from said sensors and to analyse the sensor data by monitoring whether the sensor data indicates a mutual correlation (e.g. [0036-0039]: speed difference between pulleys) associated with unobstructed advancing of the car or counterweight or both (e.g. [0036-0039]: stalling) and detecting the abnormal operation condition when the sensor data indicates an absence of such correlation (e.g. [0036-0039]).
Regarding claims 3 and 7-8, Talonen discloses the system is configured to launch an alarm as a response to a detected abnormal difference in the mutual correlation (e.g. [0038]: warning signal).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 6 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talonen (EP 2760559 A1) in view of Yamashita (CN 109890739 A) (hereinafter rejections rely on provided equivalent English machine translation).
Regarding claims 2 and 6, Talonen discloses a detection of an abnormal difference in the mutual correlation (see rejection of claims 1 and 5).
Talonen fails to disclose, but Yamashita teaches the system is configured to stop the run of the elevator as a response to a detection of an abnormality (p. 4: stop the elevator when abnormality is determined).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Talonen with the teachings of Yamashita to stop the elevator when abnormality is determined so as to enhance safety for the elevator.
Regarding claim 4, Yamashita teaches a computer program comprising a program code embodied on a non-transitory computer readable medium and adapted to cause the method according to claim 1 to be executed on a data-processing system (e.g. p. 5-6).
Regarding claims 9-10, Yamashita teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program comprising a program code adapted to cause the method according to claims 2-3 to be executed on a data-processing system (e.g. p. 5-6).
Regarding claim 11, Talonen discloses the system is configured to launch an alarm as a response to a detected abnormal difference in the mutual correlation (e.g. [0038]: warning signal).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAWING CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3909. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached at 571-272-2060. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KAWING CHAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2846
Prosecution Insights